(no subject)

[mcity]

Alexis: And they were obstructing the police, but it was still a lawful protest.
Me: Nice of you to to admit they were breaking the law.
Alexis: N-no I didn't! They were peaceful, unarmed protestors! I didn't mean "obstruction" in the legal sense!
Me: You already said that they went there deliberately to protest. You said they were obstructing the police. The definition of obstruction in that state is willing and knowing obstruction of the police's duties. Unless you want to argue they were accidentally blocking the police's transport of prisoners.
Alexis: The police didn't give a lawful order!
Me: Doesn't matter whether the cops ordered them or not. The protestors specifically stated their intent to obstruct the officers unless their demands were met, and took actions, by your own admission, to keep the cops from doing their job. That is probable cause for an arrest.
Alexis: But it was police brutality!
Me: No, they used standard force for an arrest with a resisting perpetrator.
Alexis: But they were innocent, unarmed, legal protestors!
Me: If they broke the law, their protest was by definition, illegal. Not to mention threatening the cops, which is legally a riot.
Alexis: [DEAFENING SILENCE]

Comments

[simplypeachy.livejournal.com]

I know the law, I do! HUMAN RIGHTS!

If I tip my hat any more to you it may exceed critical jaunt, so I'll just thank you on this occasion.

[mcity.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, it's a bit of a lost cause. This individual has incredible denial skills, and strawman's all the time. Funny thing; she says she will admit when she's wrong. Then I linked to a conversation of hers from last fall (involving the same incident) where she implied I was a stupid, egocentric American who couldn't understand the British article we were discussing, I told her, with glee, she was wrong, I live in the UK, and my passport says "British" on the front*, and she never said "whoops, sorry"! A dozen posts later...

You know how sometimes a thought will rumble round the back of your mind for a while, then prod incessantly at the front of it?

The reason I thought you were American had nothing to do with prejudice and bias. Your dictionary of choice was Merriam-Webster and you were happy to spell 'militarisation' with a zee. See?

The funny thing is that I am absolutely sure she believes this to be true. She's that good at rationalizing things to herself.

When I pointed this out in the current thread, she...never responded to that post saying that she was wrong when she claimed she always admits she is wrong.

Currently, she's discounting accounts from the protesters involved because they disagree with her claims. She says the eyewitness accounts are unreliable. Of course, she had no problem using one particular account earlier, until I pointed out the individual in question never said he witnessed the events himself, and was describing things that happened in a very different order according to video of the event or were not corroborated at all. It's false.

*"British Passport, Turks and Caicos Islands", to be precise. I'm an overseas Territories citizen.